[thefishingfreak]

supposedly are troops are in for one **** of a fight when they arive at bagdad ,the threat of bio-chem. attacks from saddams' elite gaurds . who now,thanks to the russians, have night vision tech.- and radar/gps jamming tech.
i belive that the bombers are "softening them up" with all these bombs and cruise missles {the thousands of bombs and missles the press is not reporting }. and we will waltz right in there .
and if these elite gaurds do attack with bio-chem. wepons. we will drop the m.o.a.b.'s or nuke's right on top of them.

 

[Fishing Friend]

During the 1991 war someone in know told me that if chemical weapons were used we would nuke them.

 

[thefishingfreak]

isrial said if sadam attacked them with bio-chem. on isreal that they would nuke em .
and the co-allition warned sadam of the same thing.


personaly i think sadam's dead

 

[skatemaster]

In 1991, the coalition was pushing Iraqi soldiers home. In 2003, they are pushing them out of their home. I can't imagine why the wars wouldn't be completely different. I don't see the US using nukes ever again. Why would nukes have been used in 1991 in Kuwait, when the coalition was trying to return Kuwait to the Kuwaitis?

 

[thefishingfreak]

maybe not "nukes"

collon powell warned the iraq's that we have the exacting means to deliver massive force,and would use it .
nukes of the old times, are probably not used any more, but i think that we have something besides the m.o.a.b's up our sleves

 

[ahcoldcorona]

Your correct there tiny nukes

The United States has been working on tactical nukes. Basically a miniture of the old bad boys of the cold war. Stronger then the moab.

 

[Scalawag]

If thousands of Iraqi " citizens " get in on this { as promised }.....

We're gonna have to change the policy of percision bombing of specific Govt. targets to much more of a widespread bombing campaign throughout the city of Baghdad.
I have the feeling that we dont have enough guys, I just hope they're not going to to terribly outnumbered then maybe overwhelmed with chemical weapons.
I've got a feeling this Saddam guy has some really evil sh*t up his sleeve.
He wants to go down in history as a great Arab Martyr. Dont get me wrong we'll win but I just hope & pray it's not going too horrific for our soldiers.

 

[ronzo]

re: fighting

Keeping collateral damage down is now a top job for our guys but at what cost to us? It essentially means that WE are fighting by RULES, they do not!(ie WTC) Who has the advantage?! In the last two days Bagdad could have been "conventionally "leveled and they might be surrendering NOW! My question is, are the people who hate us NOW going to hate us any less for our efforts? I think not... Why is Iraq TV still on the air? Is the rest of the world worthy enough to have AMERICAN BLOOD on it's soil? You would think something good would have grown out of french soil! Hey Thanks for listening!

 

[Scalawag]

Iraqi TV, the electric/lights are still on

People are still driving around notice that ? Hmmmm I wonder if theyre transporting arms to citizens & maybe many thousands of them while we keep theyre roads & bridges intact & lit up..
Many of the so called Iraqi citizens were trying not to hit are most likly armed & waiting for our Boys... the people there are there to fight, others left a long time ago...
Our Govt. is trying to keep public world opinion favorable by not bombing the crap out of Baghdad, I just hope it's not @ the cost of many American lives...
Ronzo, your point is well taken...We'll find out real soon .

(This post edited by Scalawag on 03/24/2003)

 

[skatemaster]

1 of the reasons we are going in is to "liberate" the Iraqi people. I suspect that has something to do with the level of bombing that we are seeing.

 

[618412]

Same Guy? I doubt it............

Which is the real Saddam?.......

(This post edited by matrix1 on 03/24/2003)

 

[MakoMike]

Guys,
Why would we want to "carpet bomb" bagdad and maybe hit or maybe not the military targets? Its the targets that are important and if we can almost guarantee direct hits why wouldn't we want to do that?

 

[Toutog]

Surrender or Die....

That will be the final message after we surround Bagdad with thousands of Tanks and Artillery pieces.

They will get to see the MOAB when
they come out of hiding and line up to meet our troops. We ain't going in, they are coming out.As Scalawag said, nobody is left in there except the Rats. It is easier for us to see 'um with the lights on!
Don't you think that we have people on the inside of Bagdad watching them???

They have yet to see how smart we REALLY are. I think that if they try to use Chem.or Bio, They will get to see
them Tac. Nucs. Let it be a message to the rest of the world, Especially N.Korea that we will use any means possible against our enemies!

Right Now, I am very angry at the fake surrender and treatment of those captured by Iraq. Lets get this over soon, no matter what it takes....

Safe return and God speed to our Armed Forces that are protecting us!

 

[Savvy18]

Our problem is that the U.S. is being depicted all over the world as the bad guys in this conflict. The Bush administration is **** bent on proving that our mission is a liberation not a destruction of Iraq. Therefore, I doubt we will use any nukes or tactical weapons. This country has always been at fault for playing by the rules when our opposition fights dirty. I think it's time to show the world who the superpower is. Iraq wants us to fight in the street of Baghdad like we did in Europe during WWII. The way the Russians forced the Germans to fight in Stalingrad. They think they can inflict heavy damage to our forces and demoralize the nation. I say decimate the whole city and leave no buildings standing for them to hide in...
When it's all over in Iraq, relocate the war effort to Russia. We have more enemies to fear in that country than we do in all of the world combined.
That is my opinion...

 

[614058]

We will never use nuclear weapons.

We are on a liberation mission apparently and we have some Iraqi civillians siding with us believe it or not. We would never want to ruin that by killing civillians. They are very important to this war as you can't liberate people that don't want to be liberated. I'm starting to believe that there is more to this than oil but if we used nukes, I would lose any reason for this war.

Using nuclear weapons will also only anger other nuclear capable countries like North Korea. Last thing we want is to fight two wars.

As the leading world power, we have to lead by example. We need to make an example that peace does work and nuclear weapons are no longer needed.

What I still don't get is this. September 11th is one of the darkest days in our history. Thousands of innocent people died. Some extreme muslims rallied in the street after that day. We were outraged at their celebration and outraged at the destruction.

Now, nearly 2 years later, we are in Iraq. There are innocent people there too. I don't see how some of you can support the use of nuclear weapons when it would cause the same devastation that triggered this whole war in the first place. You have to remember that these are human beings just trying to live their lives and feed their families just like those poor souls in the WTC. There is no need for needless death.

 

[611811]

NUKES

Patrick, I agree with your principles but I'm not sure you opening statement is correct although I sure hope it is. I would be leading the protest marches if this country ever decides to use nuclear weapons again unless in a last ditch retaliatory response.

As I was born after WWII, I cannot comment on Pres. Truman's decision to drop atomics on our enemies. I know that when the subject comes up it is one of the few times I feel embarrassed for my country. I'm hoping that that was a different time and the lose of human life in a long drawn out war outweighed the global ramifications of using whatever means necessary to end the conflict. Now with the proliferation of nuclear weapons and global terrorism, nukes can only be a last resort after all hope is lost.

God Bless the USA and all other freedom loving people in the world.

Ralph

 

[Scalawag]

This war has NOTHING to do with oil, Nothing to do with oil, Nothing to do with oil, NOTHING to do with oil.

The oil is Iraq's & will still be Iraqs when the campaign is over. If anything Iraq's oil will available for us to purchase as sanctions will be lifted whe Saddam is gone & it will drop the price of oil worldwide BUT the Iraqi people will prosper from this.
Why is it so hard for people to figure this out ? Saddam is PSYCHO AMERICAN HATING DIRTBAG WHO WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH OSAMA BINLADEN ON SEPT 11 & left to contribute his evil & wealth in the region will practilly insure us of more Sept. 11'th's & even more horrific terrorism in this country.
THIS IS THE ENEMY, WE"RE AFTER THE RIGHT DIRTBAG, BELIEVE IT!!!!!
God Bless America

 

[MakoMatt]

The battle for Baghdad may turn into one big bloody mess such as the world has never seen. Saddam and his closest cronies know they are going down, and I think when the time comes they may threaten the our forces, the world, with the proposition that if we advance another foot, they will blow up, burn down, use chemical weapons on it’s own people in the city, shoot everybody they can, etc. They may in effect say to us, OK, you want Baghdad, it’s yours, but there will be nothing left. What do we do then?? It’s either a stalemate, which won’t happen, we will rush in to try to limit the damage and hope their troops don’t carry out their orders, but I’m sure some will. When the smoke clears, we will see such atrocities that haven’t been seen since WWII. That’s my guess.

As far as nukes, I would think we are prepared to use them. I believe we have what are known as tactical nuclear weapons designed for the battlefield. Should the republican guard troops fire chemical weapons at us under battlefield conditions where civilians are not present, that would be our response. Don’t count on them be launched like that though, if they are used, and I think they will eventually, it will probably be from downtown Baghdad on mobile launchers.

These are what I see as the worst-case scenarios, I hope it does not pan out that way.

MakoMatt

 

[616787]

I think we will only consider using nuclear force if there is a devastating chemical, biological, or nuclear terrorist attack here, or maybe on one of our allies. I think the Iraquis are smart enough to know that too.

But, it might not stop them from trying it when they see the end of thier reign is in sight!

The oil prices will remain the same, or maybe a token drop of a few pennies. Never forget how powerful the oil enterprise is right here, in the USA.

 

[newyorkcityman]

how the US will profit from iraq

nothing to do with oil scalawag?
then why were the first 2 us objectives to secure the roads and the OIL FIELDS?
why were battalions stationed at every oil field, but not every city?
yes, we will let the iraqi's maintain OWNERSHIP of the wells, but we will say who they sell it to and at what price.

also very disturbingly, the US and UK are giving out "rebuilding contracts" worth tens of millions. first co. to recieve one of these lucrative work orders>> dick cheney's old co.
Hmmm. btw even france wants in on these contracts and is angry the UK wont give them a share in the work orders.
so we will make money hand over fist in this war.
im not saying its our primary reason for being there, but food for thought.